User talk:Fmeyers30/sandbox

Geoffrey Place Peer Review

I thought this was much better than the one I read before. Very interesting and well thought out in terms of additions and organization. I would still look into reorganizing that large paragraph where the two guys just ramble on. It may be interesting to use a topic like society's response or something a little more eloquent than what I wrote. Also, I would definitely add some internal links for some of the species in the biology topic. In addition, you may want to look further into anything at all that affected people, as in neighboring islands if it affected anybody else at all. The Observation topic was also a very good addition. It may be fine just how it is. But you might want to just consider doing a subheading to organize flora/ fauna. Very good additions. Rplace1 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jason peer review
This isn't necessary but under biology when you talk about the diverse wildlife you could give an example of some of the wildlife there. If you have a reason you could also explain why there are so many birds specifically on this island and not on the other aleutian islands. Under post 2008 ecology link primary succession. You pointed out the stellar sea lion in that section, is there a reason why? Did they become extinct? You could elaborate on that if there is a specific reason. Under observations it is noted that there are legacies. In previous sections I believe it was said that all life was erased. You may want to clarify that. "These few examples of learned patterns by monitoring how the ecosystem of Kasatochi returns to a new equilibrium and comparing the data to similar island will further our understanding of how? Terrestrial-marine interactions allow for new knowledge of ecosystem reassembly after a devastating natural disaster." I think you may have missed a word in that last sentence. I may have missed grammar mistakes because I'm a terrible writer. I thought this was a really well done addition to the article! It was very well organized and informative.

Review from Dr. Becky
You have received good feedback from your peers and I recommend applying it to the article. The writing overall is clear, but improvement can be made on the organization, sentence structure, and transitions. There are also several places missing citations. Carefully read through all section and work to be more specific. Watch the use of scientific terms without providing connotation for how they are to be used. Evaluate topics sentences and make them more direct. You have made a significant improvement to this article, with connections to science- now work toward filling in the gaps of information. I look forward to reading the finished version. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)